[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131004120324.GE25137@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:03:25 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Use of drivers/platform and matching include?
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:09:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:46:30AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > I don't have a good answer though. If it wasn't for the arm64 fork,
> > > locating these under arch/arm somewhere would really be the reasonable
> > > answer, like we used to do on powerpc. :(
> >
> > Sounds like yet-another-good reason why there shouldn't be an arm64
> > "fork" at all :(
> >
> > The arm community created this mess, you all can fix it up, it's not too
> > late.
>
> I said at the time, way before arm64 was merged that it should not be a
> separate arch. Every bit of feedback I gave on arm64 got shouted down
> by Catalin. ARM64 is Catalin's baby and he wants to protect it at all
> costs.
My counter arguments weren't probably clear to you. I want to protect a
clean, legacy-free AArch64 implementation at all costs.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists